JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order no.107 dated 15th December, 2016 passed by the First Labour Court, West Bengal, in Case No. 02/2002/10(1B)(d), by which the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the respondent no.3 has been allowed.

2. The respondent no.3, in usual course, was appointed as a Chemist on 10th October, 2000 with the SAJ Industries Private Limited and was on probation at the relevant point of time. The terms of appointment of respondent no.3 would appear from the letter of appointment dated 8th October, 2000. While on probation, the service of the respondent no.3 was terminated by an order dated 18th April, 2001.

3. Dissatisfied with the order of termination, the respondent no.3 approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the conciliation having failed, the respondent no.3 approached the First Labour Court by filing an application under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) as amended by West Bengal Act 33 of 1989. Since then, on the basis of the direction issued by the First Labour Court, both the respondent no.3 as also the SAJ Industries Private Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, filed their respective written statements. The aforesaid proceeding was ultimately disposed of by an ex parte award dated 17th August, 2006.

4. Being aggrieved, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner challenged such ex parte award before this Hon’ble Court, by filing a writ application which was registered as WP 1661 of 2006. By an order dated 29th November, 2007, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while setting aside the ex-parte award was, inter alia, pleased to observe as follows :

“4.7. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and it will be open to the Tribunal to adjudicate on the issues raised before it”.

5. The records would reveal that an application for amendment of pleadings was filed by the respondent no.3 on 4th June, 2008. No objection was filed in connection with such application, by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.

6. Records reveal that pursuant to the order of amalgamation dated 1st March 2011, passed by the Company Court, SAJ Industries Private Limited merged with the writ petitioner. Following such amalgamation, an application for deciding the maintainability of the case under Section 10(1B)(d) of the said Act, as a preliminary issue was filed by the petitioner before the learned First Labour Court. By an order dated 23rd March, 2011, the learned First Labour Court rejected the said application.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court which was registered as WP No.534 of 2011. By an order dated 8th May, 2014, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss such application.

8. It is only thereafter in the year 2015, that an objection was filed by the petitioner to the application for amendment. By order no.107 dated 15th December, 2016, which is impugned in the present writ application, the First Labour Court on contest was, inter alia, pleased to allow the said application for amendment.

9. Being aggrieved, the present writ application has been filed.

10. Mr. Majumder learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the amendment application has been filed belatedly after more than 6 years from the date of commencement of the proceedings. He says that the application itself is not maintainable because the same has been filed after closure of evidence. According to Mr. Majumder, the First Labour Court is guided by the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act, which in effect empowers the Tribunal to regulate such procedure, as it may think fit. However, while doing so, the Tribunal/Labour Court is bound by the other portions of the said Act. By referring to Section 11(3) of the said Act, he submits that since the